Child-Care Study Finds MediocreLevel of Services

Most child-care centers provide mediocre services at best, and many
are so bad they threaten children's emotional and intellectual
development, a study set for release this week says.

Infants and toddlers are in the most danger of receiving poor care,
the study warns: Four out of 10 are in settings that fail to meet basic
health and safety needs.

The study concludes that high-quality care can improve the skills
and school readiness of all children. But the authors found that only a
fraction of centers provides such care.

The average center, they said, is one in which adults provide little
warmth and support, and children gain few learning experiences.

The 2-1/2-year, $1 million study by researchers at several
universities is described as the first of its kind to examine the
relationship between the costs of child care and the nature of
children's experiences in different settings.

While some of the results confirm long-held suspicions of
inadequacy, the research further shows that many child-care centers
have little economic incentive to improve.

The report says that meeting the first national education
goal--school readiness for all children--is highly unlikely given the
low quality of care, and it urges states to hold centers to higher
standards. It also suggests a campaign--"analogous to the one
addressing the impact of smoking on health"--to alert parents to the
dangers of poor-quality programs.

The results "shine a beacon to where our energies need to go in
terms of the crisis in child care," said Sharon Lynn Kagan, a Yale
University researcher who was one of the principal investigators.

Barbara Willer, a spokeswoman for the National Association for the
Education of Young Children, said the study "underscores the fact that
we know how to provide quality programs, but have difficulty doing so
because of conspiring market forces."

A Distressing Picture

Researchers at Yale, the University of Colorado at Denver, the
University of California at Los Angeles, and the University of North
Carolina at Chapel Hill produced the report, "Cost, Quality, and Child
Outcomes in Child Care Centers."

During the spring of 1993, the researchers collected cost and
quality data from 50 nonprofit and 50 for-profit centers selected
randomly in each of four states: California, Colorado, Connecticut, and
North Carolina. The following summer, they also tracked more than 800
of the children who had attended the centers to determine how they had
developed in the different settings.

Unlike many previous studies that have focused attention on at-risk
children in child care, the researchers did not limit themselves to
that group. The authors controlled for factors that tend to dictate
readiness for school, such as gender, race, and mother's education
level, and concluded that all children improve their skills with
higher-quality care.

Unfortunately, the researchers discovered, few children receive such
care. Over all, only one in seven centers received a rating of
"developmentally appropriate."

Moreover, one in eight centers neglected children's basic needs, and
care for infants and toddlers was even worse.

States with more demanding licensing standards, however, have fewer
poor-quality programs, the study found.

Of the four states in the study, North Carolina had the lowest
standards--and the worst centers. It allows a lower staff-to-child
ratio and requires less early-childhood education of its staff.

Such factors, in addition to teacher salaries and administrators'
prior experience, are strong determinants of quality, according to the
report.

The study dispelled the notion that quality varies greatly between
for-profit and nonprofit centers. Within each sector, however, some
types of programs rated higher than others. Among nonprofits, centers
operated by public agencies such as schools tend to offer the highest
quality, while church-affiliated centers are of relatively low
caliber.

True Costs

Ms. Kagan said that "without question" the lower pay of child-care
workers compared with that of many other occupations discourages people
from entering the field, accounts for its high turnover, and weakens
the quality of care provided to young children.

Several advisers to the research team hailed the report's thorough
cost analysis, which included such factors as the amount of money
teachers give up to stay in the poorly paid field.

The report "helps identify what the true costs of quality are, which
is an area that has been less looked at in legislatures," said Shelly
Smith, the director of the children and families program for the
National Conference of State Legislatures.

A significant finding was that even modest investments in programs
can improve quality.

Market Forces

But strong competition in the child-care market--combined with
ill-informed consumers--is a big roadblock to improvement, the study
suggests.

Both the for-profit and nonprofit sectors tend to minimize costs and
charge similar fees. Moreover, parents will often pay as much for
poor-quality programs as they will for high-quality care, the authors
discovered.

"Until parents and other purchasers of care can easily distinguish
good from mediocre and poor-quality centers, and demand higher quality,
centers cannot increase their fees to cover the increased costs of
providing better care," the study concludes.

Ms. Willer of the N.A.E.Y.C. said the report is particularly timely
as Congress begins to look at the funding of child-care programs.

"Cutting child-care support when quality is already under pressure,"
she said, "is simply unconscionable."

Information about ordering copies of the report is available from
the Cost, Quality, and Child Outcomes Study, Economics Department,
Campus Box 159, P.O. Box 173364, University of Colorado at Denver,
Denver, Colo. 80217-3364; (303) 556-4934.

Notice: We recently upgraded our comments. (Learn more here.) If you are logged in as a subscriber or registered user and already have a Display Name on edweek.org, you can post comments. If you do not already have a Display Name, please create one here.

Ground Rules for Posting
We encourage lively debate, but please be respectful of others. Profanity and personal attacks are prohibited. By commenting, you are agreeing to abide by our user agreement.
All comments are public.